SectionM.docx

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Basis for Contract Award

A. This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract for RSAF F-15 Supply Services as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability and small business concern utilization acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable with acceptable small business concern utilization, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is considered significantly more important than cost/price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable with acceptable small business concern utilization, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below.

B. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

C. It is the Government’s intent to award one contract for the RSAF F-15 Supply Services. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

D. Offerors must complete, sign, and submit with their proposal the RFP Checklist, Attachment 13, that has been provided. Each offeror’s proposal will be validated for compliance utilizing the RFP Checklist. Any proposal failing to complete all items referenced on the checklist, or complete the checklist itself may result in the offeror’s proposal being deemed non-compliant and ineligible for award.

E. Offerors must submit evidence of having a valid Saudi business license with the proposal submission to be eligible for contract award. Offerors who fail to supply evidence of a Saudi business license by proposal submission shall be deemed non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the RFP and therefore, ineligible for award. It is acceptable for a subcontractor and/or joint venture member be the holder of the Saudi business license.

F. The Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 4) will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents, Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions Conditions, and Notices to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award). The Cross Reference Matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

2. Proposal Evaluation. The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. Factor 1: Technical

(1).

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below, to determine if the technical proposal provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The evaluation will assess the offeror’s identified risks, if any; associated with the proposed approach and the actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks.

(2) Technical Ratings:

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The technical risk associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach will also be considered as part of the technical acceptability decision. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not acceptable. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. The Government may independently identify risks, not identified by the offeror, and assess the risks’ impact to the successful performance of the contract. Should the Government determine that any risks identified by either the offeror or the Government poses too great a risk to the program and no suitable mitigation is provided; the Government may consider the proposal technically unacceptable. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Table 1: Technical Ratings

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

(3) Subfactor One: Understanding of Technical Performance Requirements

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal adequately addresses each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS:

a) The offeror’s adequate approach for providing logistics support personnel for positions identified and approved by RSAF for all F-15C/D/S/SA locations In-Kingdom as follows (PWS 4.14, 4.14.3, and 4.14.4):

i. The approach includes the following services: evaluating, hiring and training local personnel to minimize reliance on expatriate workers and promote utilization of In-Kingdom sources for support

ii. The approach describes the offeror’s capability or strategy to recruit, sustain, and fill personnel vacancies subsequent to initial hiring

b) The offeror’s adequate approach for supplying items for RSAF F-15C/D/S/SA support as follows (PWS paragraphs 4.15, 4.15.2, 4.15.2.1, 4.15.2.2, 4.15.3, 4.15.3.1, and 4.15.3.2):

i. The approach describes how the offeror plans to forecast, purchase, track, receive, stock, and deliver consumable, expendable, recoverable, and repairable coded (ERRC) items with a code of “N” or “P” to a variety of RSAF, contractor facilities and future F-15SA locations, throughout the Kingdom

ii. The approach addresses how the offeror plans to meet the identified service summary metrics of bin fill rate and bin wait time.

c) The offeror’s adequate approach for operating and maintaining RSAF Print Plant Studio Directorate (PPSD) and Print on Demand (POD) facilities and equipment, at multiple locations, throughout the Kingdom as follows (PWS paragraphs 4.16, 4.16.1, 4.16.2, 4.16.5, and 4.16.7):

i. The approach addresses how the offeror plans to produce timely, appropriate, F-15 Technical Orders (TO), Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTO) and other F-15 related documents, in the correct format

ii. The approach describes how the offeror plans to provide training to RSAF personnel in the safe and efficient operation of Print on Demand (POD) equipment

d) The offeror’s adequate approach to Management Information System integration, reporting, and data collection for all consumable items, print status, and logistics support personnel status as follows:

i. The approach addresses how the system will track supply chain status

ii. The approach addresses role based access authentication, data integrity, data availability, data reliability and 24-hour access (PWS 4.12; 4.12.3 through 4.12.5)

2. Subfactor Two– Management Approach

This subfactor is met when the proposal provides an adequate management approach, for each requirement and deliverable. The adequate management approach provides explicit details as to how the effort will be managed. The management approach clearly indicates a complete understanding of the required actions, anticipated workload, labor needs by type, projected travel, as well as other requirements to satisfy the requirements of the PWS.

For the purposes of this solicitation, a subcontractor performing 30 percent or more, of the overall effort, based on the sum of the price proposed for each contract line item and/or possesses the Saudi Business license the prime contractor is relying on to perform the efforts of the PWS, will be considered a critical subcontractor.

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal addresses it’s adequate management approach for each of the following requirements, as mandated in PWS:

a) The offeror’s management approach, is supported by an adequate organizational chart, as follows (PWS 4.10, 4.10.1, and 4.10.2):

i. The organizational chart includes critical subcontractors and the delineation of efforts among the critical subcontractors.

ii. The organizational chart may or may not include names associated with roles, but gives the Government an adequate understanding of how the offeror’s organization will be organized.

b) The offeror’s management approach addresses an adequate staffing/recruiting/ retention strategy and methodology to ensure compliance with the requirements of PWS paragraphs 4.10.3.2, 4.14.3

c) The offeror’s management approach provides an adequate sub-contracting strategy as follows (PWS 4.10.2):

i. The subcontracting strategy includes how the offeror intends to manage its subcontracted efforts

ii. If critical subcontractors are proposed, the approach clearly identifies the management strategies and approach to ensure the subcontractor performance meets the requirements of the PWS

iii. The subcontracting strategy places particular emphasis on the performance accountability techniques and measures that will be used by the offeror

d) The offeror’s management approach addresses adequate In-Kingdom management and contract administration of the PWS as follows (PWS 4.1.2 and 4.10.3.2):

i. Includes offeror’s knowledge and understanding of In-Kingdom laws, customs, licenses and security processes as required for In-Kingdom personnel.

ii. Submits evidence of having a Saudi Business license with the proposal submission to be eligible for award. Offerors who fail to supply evidence of a Saudi business license by proposal submission are deemed ineligible for award. It is not necessary for the Prime Contractor to be the holder of the Saudi Business license; it is acceptable for their subcontractor and/or joint venture member to be the holder of the Saudi business license. In this instance, the subcontractor is considered a critical subcontractor (see definition of critical subcontractor above).

3. Subfactor Three- Transition Plan

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a compliant Transition Plan that describes the approach, methodology, timeline and assumptions, for transitioning RFP requirements, from the incumbent contractor. All activities associated with transitioning requirements and full assumption of responsibilities for contract performance, by the prime contractor, are proposed to be completed within 120 days.

This subfactor is met when the plan includes a detailed description of the approach, the activities required, overall anticipated timeline, as well as timelines associated with each activity and dependencies/interdependencies.

The subfactor is met when the detailed approach contains information describing the offeror’s approach and timeline for each of the following requirements, as mandated by the PWS and/or applicable Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL):

a) Ensures personnel are hired and in place (PWS 4.8, 4.14.3)

b) Facility(s) outfitting, setup and management, which includes an in-Kingdom warehouse (PWS 4.8, 4.15.5.11)

c) The transfer of any Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), from the incumbent, as follows:(PWS 4.8, 4.15.1.1.2). The transfer includes, at a minimum:

i. The initial inventory

ii. Initial orders

d) Includes a compliant integrated master schedule for the transition period, with a detailed assessment of any assumptions (PWS 4.8, CDRL A002, DI-MGMT-81945)

i. The integrated master schedule depicts the offeror’s transition plan in schedule format

A proposal evaluated by the Government to be UNACCEPTABLE for any sub-factor, as defined in Table 1, will not be considered for award.

B. Factor 2: Past Performance

(1) The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture member’s ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and/or critical subcontractor’s demonstrated past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming member), other than the offeror itself, that will perform more than 30 percent of the overall effort, based on the sum of the price proposed for each contract line item and/or possesses the Saudi Business License (if other than the prime contractor). Failure of the offeror to submit evidence of past performance for critical sub-contractors will result in a determination of non-compliance with the requirements of this solicitation and the offeror’s proposal will be removed from further consideration and determined ineligible for award.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the three (3) recent contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member (s) and each of its critical sub-contractors. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s/joint venture members’ opinion of relevancy. For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will consider the following relevancy factors listed in Table 2, as well as logistic and programmatic considerations included in the note immediately following the table. Table 2 describes the relevancy ratings and criteria that will be assigned to each effort identified in Volume III of the offeror’s proposal. Primes, critical subcontractors, and joint ventures will all be evaluated against the below relevancy ratings:

Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

The following criteria must all be met:

1) Prime Contractor on Effort The following criteria must all be met:

1) Prime Contractor on Effort

2) Foreign Military Sales (FMS) in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA)

2) FMS or Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) in KSA

3) Customize** and Manage** and Maintain** a web-based Management Information System (MIS)

3) Manage** and Maintain** a web-based Management Information System (MIS)

5) Supply Chain Management

5) Supply Chain Management

The following criteria must all be met:

1) Prime or Subcontractor on Effort Present/Past performance effort involves little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires

2) FMS contract

3) Manage** a web-based Management Information System (MIS)

4) Management of more than one Subcontractor

5) Supply Chain Management

**For purposes of evaluation the below definitions apply:

“Customize” is defined as the ability to manipulate the database and add/delete/change fields within the MIS “Maintain” is defined as the ability to ensure the availability of the system and the integrity of the data contained within “Manage” is defined as the ability to: input data and produce reports and to verify accuracy of the data

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified in the above definitions, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to quantity managed, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical features and characteristics, and the programmatic/ logistical scope and magnitude of the effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical features and characteristics in the definitions above, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

(2) In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a. The Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information shall be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), System for Award Management (SAM), and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b. Offerors/joint venture members/critical subcontractors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(3) As a result of the recency and relevancy assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below in Table 4.

Table 4: Past Performance Factor

Past Performance Factor

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

C. FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE

Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) reasonableness, (2) unbalanced pricing, and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose cost/price is determined to be incomplete and/or unreasonable may not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.1 Reasonableness

The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. In addition, price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis, other techniques described in FAR 15.4 will be used. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

3.2 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.3 TEP

The Government will utilize the following methodology to determine the TEP of each proposal. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated prices of each CLIN as outlined below for both the Basic and Options I-III. The sum of the evaluated prices of all of the CLINs will represent the TEP. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options. The evaluated CLIN prices will be calculated as explained and illustrated below:

· For FPIF CLINs X001 (excluding CLINs 4001), the offerors’ Unit Target Cost will be multiplied by the quantity for each respective Sub-CLIN to derive a Total Cost. The Total Cost for each Sub-CLIN will then be multiplied by 120% to yield the Ceiling Prices. The Ceiling Prices for the three ranges will be added together and divided by three to derive a simple average Ceiling Price, which will represent the evaluated CLIN price.

· For FPIF CLIN 4001, the Ceiling Prices will be calculated by the Government as 50% of the offerors’ Option III Ceiling Price for each respective range. The calculated Ceiling Prices for the three ranges will be added together and dived by three to derive a simple average Ceiling Price, which will represent the evaluated CLIN price.

· For FFP CLINs X002 (excluding 4002), the average of the two monthly labor costs (Expat versus Saudi National) will be multiplied by the Maximum number of positions for each respective Labor Category to derive the Total Price. The Total Price will be multiplied by the maximum quantity to compute the Extended Price. The Extended Prices for all Labor Categories will be added together for each respective CLIN to derive the evaluated CLIN prices.

· The FPIF and FFP evaluated CLIN prices for all periods are then added together, yielding the TEP.

· The following CLINs (Basic and all Options I - IV) are not included in the TEP:

The Government will utilize the following methodology to determine the TEP of each proposal. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated prices of each CLIN as outlined below for both the Basic and Options I-III. The sum of the evaluated prices of all of the CLINs will represent the TEP. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options. The evaluated CLIN prices will be calculated as explained and illustrated below:

· For FPIF CLINs X001 (excluding CLINs 4001), the offerors’ Unit Target Cost will be multiplied by the quantity for each respective Sub-CLIN to derive a Total Cost. The Total Cost for each Sub-CLIN will then be multiplied by 120% to yield the Ceiling Prices. The Ceiling Prices for the three ranges will be added together and divided by three to derive a simple average Ceiling Price, which will represent the evaluated CLIN price.

· For FPIF CLIN 4001, the Ceiling Prices will be calculated by the Government as 50% of the offerors’ Option III Ceiling Price for each respective range. The calculated Ceiling Prices for the three ranges will be added together and dived by three to derive a simple average Ceiling Price, which will represent the evaluated CLIN price.

The IGE for each of the above cost-type CLINs will be provided in the RFP itself, and the offerors will not be required to price these items in their cost proposals.

TEP Example

FPIF:

Cost Unit Target Profit Unit Target Price Extended Price

Price

Basic:

7,001- 14,000

14,001- 20,000

Evaluated CLIN Price

$480

Option I: 1001

7,001-

14,001-

Evaluated CLIN Price

$480

Option II: 2001

14,000

14,001-

Evaluated CLIN Price

$480

Option III: 3001

7,001-

14,001-

Evaluated CLIN Price

$480

Option IV: 4001

7,001-

14,001-

Evaluated CLIN Price

$240

Total Evaluated FPIF CLIN Prices

$2,160

* ((Unit Target Cost x Quantity) x 120%)

FFP:

Cost

Basic: 0001

Evaluated CLIN Price

$10,000

Option I: 1001

Evaluated CLIN Price

$10,000

Option II: 2001

Evaluated CLIN Price

$10,000

Option III: 3001

Evaluated CLIN Price

$10,000

Option IV: 4001

Evaluated CLIN Price

$5,000

Total Evaluated FFP CLN Prices

$45,000

Total Evaluated Price

$47,160

3.4 Options

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

· The FPIF and FFP evaluated CLIN prices for all periods are then added together, yielding the TEP.

· The following CLINs (Basic and all Options I - IV) are not included in the TEP:

D. FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN UTILIZATION FACTOR

The Small Business Concern Utilization Plan will be applicable for only work conducted CONUS. A rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable,” in paragraph 5 below, shall be assigned to this factor utilizing the ratings and descriptions identified below. The description of the subcontracted work to be performed by proposed Small Businesses (SB) to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZONE small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns, along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars shall be identified. The evaluation will consider the extent to which:

(1) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB), to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZONE small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns, when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided; and,

(2) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by Small Businesses (SB), to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZONE small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns, the company names/CAGE codes, along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided; and,

(3) Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for Small Business (SB) and these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

(4) The associated goals in paragraph 2 above in the offeror’s Small Business Concern Utilization Plan will be evaluated against the FY15 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2015 goals are as follows:

Subcontracting

DEPT OF DEFENSE (9700)

(5) Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings: